New genomic techniques (NGTs) should be allowed without pre-market authorization in organic and conventional food production to boost climate-resilience and yields, say researchers. This would support the EU’s goal of making 25% of its farming organic by 2030, since organic farms usually produce less food, making it harder to keep food production sustainable.

However, NGTs are currently banned under EU organic production rules. The scientists are calling to incorporate NGTs into organic production with “participatory governance” to advance the EU’s sustainable agriculture goals.

“This is an excellent opportunity to modernize European agriculture, to make it more science based, and to support the goal of improving sustainability inside the European unio,” says first author Alexandra Molitorisová, a food law researcher at the University of Bayreuth, Germany.

Currently, 10% of EU farming areas are organic. Though organic farming can reduce carbon emissions and pollution from fertilizer and pesticides, the team says that biodiversity losses could negate these benefits due to expanding agricultural land, since organic agriculture requires more land to grow the same amount of food.

“The target of 25% organic land is unlikely to ensure sustainable food production in the EU if modern biotechnology, such as NGTs, is excluded from organic farming,” says Molitorisová.

The opinion paper is published in the Cell Press journal Cell Reports Sustainability.

Differentiating NGTs from GMOs

NGTs use advanced tools like CRISPR/Cas to change a plant’s genes without adding genes from other organisms, which is different from how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are made. However, under the existing EU GMO rules, NGT crops are considered GMOs and, therefore, subject to the same regulatory requirements.

This could concern consumers with low NGT awareness and a preference for non-GMO food quality.

“Research suggests that NGTs are still something that European consumers are not completely aware of — they just do not distinguish between NGTs and GMOs,” says senior author Kai Purnhagen, professor of Food Law at the University of Bayreuth. 

“There are strong indications that consumers would be willing to accept these technologies if they yield substantial benefits, and the Commission’s proposal for new regulation allowing NGTs in conventional farming points in this direction.”

The study states that crops created using NGTs can also be created using conventional breeding, but it would take “decades rather than months.” For these reasons, they argue that NGTs and GMOs should be defined and regulated separately, including in organic production.

“From the consumer’s perception of naturalness, the normal breeding process is between two crossable varieties, and that is also what happens with NGTs,” says Molitorisová.

“So, if consumers understand the nature and benefits of this technology, it should be easier for them to accept it compared with GMOs, which might involve inserting a gene from a non-plant organism into a plant genome.”

Traceability and labeling concerns

The research team points out that allowing NGTs in conventional but not organic agriculture poses a hurdle in NGT identification, labeling, and traceability. 

“At the moment, there are unresolved practical problems with the identification of NGTs inside of food, feed, or seeds,” flags Molitorisová. “One rational alternative is to allow NGTs in organic production, because if NGT organisms are not identifiable, they are also technically unavoidable.” 

Ultimately, the researchers say that the decision to allow NGTs in organic farming should be made by the organic farming and consumer communities, for instance, through citizens’ juries or food councils. 

“Organic consumers care about the environment and sustainability. For organic farmers, accepting this technology is a way to speak to those consumers,” concludes Purnhagen. 

Last year, a rift in public opinions split farmers following the European Parliament’s vote on a proposal to deregulate NGTs. While some favored the move as a way to adapt crops to climate change, others deemed it a “step backwards” in terms of biosafety and freedom of choice for consumers.

This was followed by F&B businesses calling for robust and transparent labeling of NGTs since consumers prefer non-GMO food quality, and NGTs are GMOs.